linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm 5/7] add user namespace

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <m1zmfct966.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date:	Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:58:57 -0600
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...nvz.org>, Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>,
	Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>,
	Sam Vilain <sam.vilain@...alyst.net.nz>,
	Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 5/7] add user namespace

"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com> writes:

> Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@...ssion.com):
>> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com> writes:
>> >> No.  The uids in a filesystem are interpreted in some user namespace
>> >> context.  We can discover that context at the first mount of the
>> >> filesystem.  Assuming the uids on a filesystem are the same set
>> >> of uids your process is using is just wrong.
>> >
>> > But, when I insert a usb keychain disk into my laptop, that fs assumes
>> > the uids on it's fs are the same as uids on my laptop...
>> 
>> I agree that setting the fs_user_namespace at mount time is fine.
>> However when we use a mount that a process in another user namespace
>> we need to not assume the uids are the same.
>> 
>> Do you see the difference?
>
> Aaah - so you don't want to store this on the fs.  So this is actually
> like what I had mentioned many many emails ago?

Quite possibly.  I'm not certain where you go the idea I was thinking
of storing this on the fs.  I think you must have been thinking of
the Linux-Vserver implementation.

>> Actually I was thinking something as mundane as a mapping table.  This
>> uid in this namespace equals that uid in that other namespace.
>
> I see.
>
> That's also what I was imagining earlier, but it seems crass somehow.
> I'd almost prefer to just tag a mount with a user namespace implicitly,
> and only allow the mounter to say 'do' or 'don't' allow this to be read
> by users in another namespace.  Then in the 'don't' case, user joe
> [1000] can't read files belonging to user jack [1000] in another
> namespace.  It's stricter, but clean.
>
> But whether we do mapping tables or simple isolation, I do still like
> the idea of pursuing the use of the keystore for global uids.

Yes.  I guess my thinking is that the mapping effort and keys are an
enhancement after we get the basic user namespace working, to overcome
the limitations.

Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/